P&R Forum Restricted Access

Thanks_Tom RR

Thanks_Tom RR

New member
There has been some decision from members and other mods about placing some restriction to the access of the Politics & Religion forum. Given some recent issues on the board, I think this would be a good time to visit the need to implement such restrictions and what options would be available.

I would be in favor of restricting access to members with a minimal post count of say 1000 or so. Maybe it does not need to be so extreme, or maybe there are other ways to create restrictions. I am not in favor of making it password protected (such as moving it to the Woodshed) as I do not think this would resolve the issues we are experiencing with new members joining just to post within the P&R forum.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I would be in favor of some kind of access restriction to newer members as it would've eliminated several of the more recent issues we experienced.

A password protected forum could work if we were the arbiters of giving out the password based on limitations i.e. we won't give the password to anyone with less than X number of posts. If we went this route, I think we'd want the # of posts required to be just out of reach of new members but not something that would take months to get into. And, somebody should be eligible to receiving a warning if it's clear they're posting spam/garbage just to boost their post total and gain access.

Of course, the easiest route would be if there was a board function that limited forum access based on post total.

I'd sit that number somewhere closer to the 250-500 range myself.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Enhance said:
I would be in favor of some kind of access restriction to newer members as it would've eliminated several of the more recent issues we experienced.

A password protected forum could work if we were the arbiters of giving out the password based on limitations i.e. we won't give the password to anyone with less than X number of posts. If we went this route, I think we'd want the # of posts required to be just out of reach of new members but not something that would take months to get into. And, somebody should be eligible to receiving a warning if it's clear they're posting spam/garbage just to boost their post total and gain access.

Of course, the easiest route would be if there was a board function that limited forum access based on post total.

I'd sit that number somewhere closer to the 250-500 range myself.
Click to expand...


I would be in favor of this. I think 250-500 makes sense. Maybe have that in combination with points that individuals have accumulated via warnings? So like 250 posts with 0 warning points. 500 if you have more than zero but less than or equal to 3? Over 3 warning points and it's a no?

 
Enhance said:
I would be in favor of some kind of access restriction to newer members as it would've eliminated several of the more recent issues we experienced.

A password protected forum could work if we were the arbiters of giving out the password based on limitations i.e. we won't give the password to anyone with less than X number of posts. If we went this route, I think we'd want the # of posts required to be just out of reach of new members but not something that would take months to get into. And, somebody should be eligible to receiving a warning if it's clear they're posting spam/garbage just to boost their post total and gain access.

Of course, the easiest route would be if there was a board function that limited forum access based on post total.

I'd sit that number somewhere closer to the 250-500 range myself.
Click to expand...
One issue with a password protected forum is that anyone with the password could give it out to anyone without one. I wonder if there is a board function that limited forum access based on post total. That would create an automated system, which would require less monitoring by us mods.

Also, the 250-500 range seems reasonable. Personally, I would go more for the 500 post limit.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mavric said:
There is
Click to expand...
giphy.gif


Does that mean we can have a forum entitled "Thanks_Tom's Super Cool Ninja, Spy, and Karate Special Interest Group" and access requires board membership between January 19, 2013 and January 21, 2013 or if your username is that of an action hero? And, you might be thinking "Even Steven Seagal"? The answer, what do you think...

J8L.gif


 
Huskerzoo said:
I would be in favor of this. I think 250-500 makes sense. Maybe have that in combination with points that individuals have accumulated via warnings? So like 250 posts with 0 warning points. 500 if you have more than zero but less than or equal to 3? Over 3 warning points and it's a no?
Click to expand...
I would LOVE this. In fact, I almost posted about it, but the more I think about, the more messier and difficult to manage it feels. I think it also opens us up to more complaints because there are several members we'd have to grandfather in or prevent from accessing it. And then we'd have the joy of explaining it to the perceived "other side."

Thanks_Tom RR said:
One issue with a password protected forum is that anyone with the password could give it out to anyone without one. I wonder if there is a board function that limited forum access based on post total. That would create an automated system, which would require less monitoring by us mods.

Also, the 250-500 range seems reasonable. Personally, I would go more for the 500 post limit.
Click to expand...
Excellent point - I hadn't thought about the ability to share the password.

 
I'm fine with whatever cleans up the mess. My thoughts simply boil down to this. If you only have like 150 posts, and 130 of them are in the the P&R forum... why are you really here? Chances are, it's not to join the community at large, but likely to stir things up.

 
Since @Mavric confirmed there is a way to use a board function to exclude access to the P&R Forum until a certain post count is met, I vote we use this feature for the current P&R Forum and set the post count to 500 and above. Second anyone?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I second. Changing my vote to 250 based on Saunders' comment, but I still second the overall restrictive concept.

Out of curiosity, is there a way to grandfather users in?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
My vote is to lower the bar to like 250 posts, but (if it's possible) we also retain the right to grant/restrict access at any time to that forum.

This is based off of like 3 minutes of perusing and seeing post counts of who is in there.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Saunders said:
My vote is to lower the bar to like 250 posts, but (if it's possible) we also retain the right to grant/restrict access at any time to that forum.

This is based off of like 3 minutes of perusing and seeing post counts of who is in there.
Click to expand...
That's probably fair. The more I think about it, 500 is a bit steep. I don't think I'll even do that in six months lol.

I'd be game for 250.

 
Enhance said:
That's probably fair. The more I think about it, 500 is a bit steep. I don't think I'll even do that in six months lol.

I'd be game for 250.
Click to expand...
That is fine by me to reduce it to 250. My goal will a high post count is to prevent someone for just spamming posts (like in the  Last to post wins thread) to reach the minimum number of posts. 250 posts probably does that.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Good point. I think we may be able to monitor for that a bit.

For example, if we saw someone doing a lot of garbage posting after the policy was put in place, we'd probably be able to pick up on it and reprimand them. We don't see too much of that now so it might stick out like a sore thumb.

 
Back
Top